1

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
CALOOCAN CITY
Branch – 49
ABILENE REALTY CORPORATION,
Represented by: DIONISIO DELA ROSA
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. 11-30297
- Versus -
For: Ejectment

ROSA ESTERA and all other persons

claiming rights under her,
Defendant.

X * * * * * * * * * X

R E P L Y
(To the Defendant’s Answer and Motion To Dismiss With
Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim and Damages With
Supplemental Opposition To Plaintiff’s Writ of Demolition
With Motion To Direct Plaintiff’s to Furnish Defendants
Certified Legible Copies of Annexes [With Motion for
Leave of Court to File Answer)

COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, in the above–entitled case, by and

through the Undersigned Counsel and unto this Honorable Court, by way
of Reply to the Defendant’s Answer and Motion To Dismiss With Affirmative
Defenses and Counterclaim and Damages With Supplemental Opposition
To Plaintiff’s Writ of Demolition With Motion To Direct Plaintiff’s to Furnish
Defendants Certified Legible Copies of Annexes [With Motion for Leave of
Court to File Answer], dated December 12, 2011, most respectfully avers:

1. That the instant case is governed by the 1991 Revised Rules

on Summary Procedure. Hence, Defendants said Pleading with Motion
designated as ‘Answer and Motion To Dismiss With Affirmative Defenses
and Counterclaim and Damages With Supplemental Opposition To
Plaintiff’s Writ of Demolition With Motion To Direct Plaintiff’s to Furnish
Defendants Certified Legible Copies of Annexes [With Motion for Leave of
Court to File Answer]’, is utterly prohibited under said Rule which
pertinently provides -
 2

“ Pleadings. —

A. Pleadings allowed. — The only pleadings

allowed to be filed are the complaints, compulsory
counterclaims and cross-claims' pleaded in the
answer, and the answers thereto.

Prohibited pleadings and motions. — The

following pleadings, motions or petitions shall not be
allowed in the cases covered by this Rule:

(a) Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash

the complaint or information except on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or failure
to comply with the preceding section; ”

(Section 3 and 19 paragraph (a), 1991 Revised Rules

on Summary Procedure)

2. That defendant’s said pleading with motion is further

prohibited by the Rule 70 of the Rules of Court which provides -

“Section 4. Pleadings allowed. — The only

pleadings allowed to be filed are the complaint,
compulsory counterclaim and cross-claim pleaded
in the answer, and the answers thereto. All
pleadings shall be verified. (3a, RSP)

Section 13. Prohibited pleadings and motions.

— The following petitions, motions, or pleadings
shall not be allowed:

1. Motion to dismiss the complaint except on

the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter, or failure to comply with section 12;”

(Sections 4 and 13 paragraph [1], Rule 70, Rules of

Court)

3. That on the foregoing scores alone, said Defendant’s Pleading

with Motion designated as – ‘Answer and Motion To Dismiss With
Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim and Damages With Supplemental
Opposition To Plaintiff’s Writ of Demolition With Motion To Direct Plaintiff’s
to Furnish Defendants Certified Legible Copies of Annexes [With Motion for
Leave of Court to File Answer]’ should be Denied for being a prohibited
pleading and a prohibited motion under the 1991 Revised Rules on
Summary Procedure and under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court;

4. That except for Civil Case No. 11-30297, Defendants’ said

Answer with Motion as may be culled from its caption included other cases
 3

in other MTC Branches of Caloocan City over which the Honorable Court
has no jurisdiction since said cases are not consolidated with Civil Case
No. 11-30297. Thus, with more reason, Defendants’ said Answer with
Motion should be Denied for being misleading and confusing;

5. That Defendant’s Supplemental Opposition to Plaintiff’s Writ of

Demolition is inappropriate and out of place since to date, plaintiff has not
moved for the issuance of writ of demolition and no such write has yet
been issued;

6. Paragraphs 1 to 5 and 8 of Defendants’ said Answer with

Motion states that the Complaint for Ejectment is a ‘Forum Shopping
Complaint’. There are no other cases pending involving the same parties,
the same subject matter and issues in other MTC Courts of Caloocan City,
except the instant case, hence, there is no forum shopping to speak of;

7. That contrary to paragraph 7 of said defendant’s Answer with

Motion, there is no need to comply with the requirement of the
Katarungang Barangay Law pursuant to the provisions of R.A. 7160
because the instant case squarely falls within the exception that when one
of the parties is a corporation, the requirement does not apply. Plaintiff is a
corporation;

8. That a careful perusal and in-depth examination of almost if

not the entirety of the defendant’s said Special and Affirmative Defenses
contained in said Answer with Motion, particularly paragraphs 8 to 17 of the
Answer with Motion reveals that defendant’s defenses against the instant
Complainant for Ejectment are, inter alia, viz: plaintiff is a land grabber
syndicate ; the property was land-grabbed by plaintiff; Illegal issuance of
Falsified Manufactured Transfer Certificate of Title; Over-lapping fictitious
and manufactured Mother-Air-Plane-Titles. On the whole, these are
collateral attack against plaintiff’s Title (Transfer Certificate of Title [TCT]
No. T-157532 which are not allowed in the instant ejectment case pursuant
to pertinent precepts ingrained in jurisprudence that –

“it is well settled that a certificate of title cannot be

subject to collateral attack and can be altered, modified or
cancelled only in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.
Having obtained a valid title over the subject lot, respondent is
entitled to protection against indirect attacks against his title.”
( SPOUSES ANTONIO and GENOVEVA BALANON - ANICETE
and SPOUSES ANDRES and FILOMENA BALANON-
MANANQUIL Vs.PEDRO BALANON, G.R. Nos. 150820-21, April
30, 2003)
 4

“A certificate of title shall not be subject to

collateral attack.” (SPOUSES IDA aka "MILAGROS" NIEVES
BELTRAN and JOSE BELTRAN Vs. ANITA R. NIEVES,
G.R. No. 175561, October 20, 2010)
“Under Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529,
a certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral
attack. It cannot be altered, modified or canceled, except in a
direct proceeding for that purpose in accordance with law. The
issue of the validity of the title of the petitioners can only be
assailed in an action expressly instituted for that purpose.
Whether or not the respondent has the right to claim
ownership over the property is beyond the power of the trial
court to determine in an action for unlawful detainer.”
(SPOUSES MARCOS R. ESMAQUEL and VICTORIA
SORDEVILLA Vs. MARIA COPRADA,
G.R. No. 152423, December 15, 2010 )
9. That moreover, as against the defenses and allegations of the
defendants, the Transfer Certificate of Title of the Plaintiff is an indefeasible
and conclusive evidence of ownership and possession of the subject
property. In a plethora of cases it was held that -

“a Torrens Title is evidence of indefeasible title to

property in favor of the person in whose name the title
appears. It is conclusive evidence with respect to the
ownership of the land described therein. It is also settled that
the titleholder is entitled to all the attributes of ownership of
the property, including possession. Thus, in Arambulo v.
Gungab, this Court declared that the "age-old rule is that the
person who has a Torrens Title over a land is entitled to
possession thereof." (ASUNCION URIETA VDA. DE AGUILAR,
represented by ORLANDO U. AGUILAR Vs. SPOUSES
EDERLINA B. ALFARO, G.R. No. 164402, July 5, 2010; citing:
Citing: Baloloy Vs. Hular, 481 Phil. 398, 410 [2004]; Carvajal Vs.
Court of Appeals, 345 Phil. 582, 594 [1997]; Arambulo Vs.
Gungab, G.R. No. 156581, September 30, 2005)

“The age-old rule is that the person who has a Torrens

Title over the land is entitled to possession thereof.”
(SPOUSES DENNIS BARIAS and DIVINA BARIAS Vs.
HEIRS OF BARTOLOME BONEO, G.R. No. 166941,
December 14, 2009 Citing: Arambulo v. Gungab, G.R. No. 156581,
September 30, 2005)

“It is settled that a certificate of title is a conclusive

evidence of ownership; it does not even matter if the title is
questionable, the instant action being an ejectment suit. In
addition, the age-old rule is that the person who has a Torrens
Title over a land is entitled to possession thereof.”( SPOUSES
SHEIKDING BOOC and BILY BOOC Vs. FIVE STAR
MARKETING CO., INC.,G.R. No. 157806, November 22, 2007)
 5

10. The defendants’ claims and defenses as may be perused from

their said pleading can only be raised in an appropriate action expressly
instituted for that purpose. This is to say that whatever may be the basis of
the defendants’ claim on the subject property, factual or legal, is simply
beyond the power of Honorable Court to determine in an action for
ejectment;

11. That paragraphs 18 to 24 in support of the defendants’

Supplemental Opposition to Plaintiff’s Writ of Demolition is inappropriate
and out of place since, as already stated in this Reply, to date, plaintiff has
not moved for the issuance of writ of demolition and no such writ has yet
been issued by the Honorable Court;

12. Besides, paragraphs 18 to 24 of the Defendants’ Answer with

Motion are again scores of collateral attack against the Plaintiff’s Title,
which, as already discussed at length, is not allowed in the instant case for
ejectment;

13. The items of damages and attorney’s fees claimed by

defendants in their compulsory counterclaims are utterly bereft of factual
and legal bases. If ever defendants incurred damages and attorney’s fees,
this is because of their adamant and unwarranted refusal to vacate the
subject premises and to pay their rental in arrears, thus, defendants should
not shift their incurrence of damages and attorney’s fees to plaintiff.

P R A Y E R

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed

of this Honorable Court that this Reply be given its due weight and
credence and that defendant’s Pleading with Motion designated as ‘Answer
and Motion To Dismiss With Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim and
Damages With Supplemental Opposition To Plaintiff’s Writ of Demolition
With Motion To Direct Plaintiff’s to Furnish Defendants Certified Legible
Copies of Annexes [With Motion for Leave of Court to File Answer]’
be Denied for being a Prohibited Pleading and a Prohibited Motion and for
utter lack of merit.

Other releifs and remedies just and equitable under the premises are
likewise prayed for.

City of Manila for Caloocan City, January 3, 2011.

 6

ATTY. LEOPOLDO P. DELA ROSA

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Suite 307 CCI Building
1091 Concepcion Street
Ermita, Manila
I.B.P. No. 837053 / Mla./11-23-2010
P.T. R. No. 9241012//Mla./1-3-2011
Roll No. 28195
MCLE Compliance No. III-0020278
March 15, 2011

E X P LANAT I O N

This is to certify as an Officer of the Court that a copy of this REPLY was served, not by
personal service but by registered mail as herein-below indicated by reason of time, distance,
lack of manpower and urgency.

ATTY. LEOPOLDO P. DELA ROSA

Copy furnished:

ATTY. ARTURO M. PACULANANG

PACULANANG, DULFO LAW OFFICE AND ASSOCIATES
Suite 310 – 3rd Floor, Aurello-II Building
11th Avenue corner Rizal Avenue
Grace Park, Caloocan City, Metro Manila